Withdrawing from Afghanistan and Nation Building

Burning Warrior Image (C) DepositPhotos.com Used with Permission

Tom Sheppard

9/10/2021

As we consider the chaotic and blame-riddled scene of our withdrawal from Afghanistan it may be worthwhile to consider why we went there in the fist place, and why we stayed nearly 20 years.

This video from PragerU succinctly describes what happened on September 11, 2001 which began the chain of events that led us into fighting in Afghanistan. If you don't want to watch the video, the short version is that more than 3,000 civilians and some military were attacked and killed on that day by terrorists sponsored by Al Queda.  Military intelligence revealed that the head of Al Queada, and their strongest presence was in Afghanistan.

Through diplomatic and other channels the US Government requested that the government of Afghanistan eject Al Queda from their country.  The Taliban was running Afghanistan at the time and they refused to sanction Al Queda in any way.  As a result, we went to war with Al Queda and their ally, the Taliban.

Over the next several weeks and months the US Military succeeded in effectively destroying nearly all offensive military capabilities of the Taliban and killed many in Al Queda.

US leaders, pondering their next steps, decided that the best way to make sure that Afghanistan would never again become a haven for terrorists was to reshape that country into a democratic republic.  They made this decision based on a view of history that reveals that democratic governments rarely initiate wars on other democratic countries.

With that decision, the mission of the US Military changed from pursuing, killing, or capturing Al Queda members and their allies to building the nation of Afghanistan.

It is worth noting that after World World II the US successfully brought on more than a half century of peace in Europe by rebuilding Germany and brought a significant degree of stability to the Far East by converting Japan from a monarchy into a democratic republic.  Likewise, the nation-building efforts in South Korea have resulted in a powerful ally, an economic miracle in Asia, and a strong democratic tradition there.

Of course, our efforts in Vietnam and later in Afghanistan did not result in the same stellar effects as seen in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.  Why not?

From my analysis of these situations it seems clear that the failures in South Vietnam and Afghanistan both have the same root cause - lack of long-term commitment.

Some will laugh at that and say, "Aren't 20 years enough of a commitment?"  The simple answer to that is "No."

A frank analysis of the successful nation building in Germany, Japan, and South Korea reveals several one telling fact.

• After more than 50 years we still have a military presence in all three of those countries.

In 2021 the US has about 200,000 military personnel in Europe.  We have 28,000 in Korea.  We have 55,000 in Japan.  

According to The Military Times our peak of engagement in Afghanistan we had about 100,000 troops there.

It is worth noting that we have also engaged in nation building in Iraq.  If you recall, we went in there for very different reasons than we did in Afghanistan.  However, once we took Saddam Hussein out of power we helped secure the peace while Iraqis established a democratic government.  However, when we withdrew our military, they were nearly overrun by ISIS.  The collapse of Iraq was only prevented by a significant re-engagement of our military there.  The Iraqis seem to be continuing on a path to building a stable democracy, but it still seems that if we withdrew, they might collapse, just as happened in Afghanistan.

Conclusions

My experience as a project manager and in process improvement has taught me that if you don't fix the root cause of problems, then you are just treating the symptoms.  I refer to this as putting out fires while not stopping the arsonist.  The initial impetus for our engagement in Afghanistan was to put out a fire.  Our objective was changed to getting rid of the arsonist.  However, in a country where arsonists abound and are often in charge of large groups of people, it will literally take a couple of generations (or more) of work to not only stop the arsonists, but to get rid of the tradition of people following arsonists.

I fully believe that we should have taken the actions we did to put out the fire and make life unbearable for those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, or any who would do so again.  However, if we want to get rid of the arsonists, we need to count the cost in advance and be prepared to invest 50 years or more of our blood and treasure to make that happen.  That is the real cost of nation building.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2021 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Why is Roe v Wade Important? It's not what you think.

Photo (C) DepositPhotos.com

Tom Sheppard

10/21/2020

As the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett proceed there has been a lot of chatter in the news about Roe v Wade.  For many years now, as candidates for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) have been considered their stance on the landmark case of Roe v Wade has been used as a litmus test to determine if they would have support from liberals and Democratic politicians.

Most of us hear "Roe v Wade" and we translate that into "Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion."  Unfortunately, we are missing the mark.

Most people know that Roe v Wade is the case where SCOTUS determined that women have a right to abortion on demand.  This 'right' can be phrased as reproductive rights, or the right to control her own body, or abortion rights.

When most of us hear about Roe v Wade, and whether or not someone supports it, our minds are focused on the topic of abortion.  However, the real importance of Roe v Wade is not about abortion.

When politicians focus on the potential of overturning Roe v Wade, they are not actually worried about abortion.  

The biggest issue embedded in Roe v Wade is not abortion.  The biggest issue is whether or not the judiciary branch is allowed to violate the Constitutional separation of powers and create laws in addition to interpreting the laws. 

As divisive and important as is the issue of abortion it is being used to mask this much bigger problem.

Abortion and Inalienable Constitutional Rights

Regardless of the moral issues of abortion, fundamentally it is a medical procedure.  It it irrefutable that the Constitution is silent of medical issues.  It neither grants, nor denies any medical procedure.  In short, our medical care is not one of our inalienable rights.

Similarly, the Constitution is silent on matters of financial security.  While we have the right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as noted in The Declaration of Independence) nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, or the Bill of Rights is there any acknowledgement that financial security is a basic right.  

Separation of Powers

The biggest issue embedded in Roe v Wade is the separation of powers.  

In a monarchy the king or queen hold all three powers of government in themselves.  The monarch writes the laws, enforces the laws, and interprets (judges) whether or not the laws are being applied correctly. 

The separation of these powers out of the hands of monarchs are the greatest accomplishments of Western Civilization.

The importance of the Magna Charta is that King John was forced to give up both judicial power and legislative power.  The right to trial by a jury of peers was a direct removal of judicial power out of the hands of the King.  The perpetual establishment of Parliament was a direct removal of legislative power out of the hands of the King.

When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they built a government that exercised all three of these governmental powers in ways that allowed each branch of government to serve as a check on the power of the other branches.

In recent years we have seen substantial erosion of the separation of powers in several ways.

The Executive Branch Has Legislated

Executive Orders and regulations have the power of legislation.  When they are promulgated as clarification of implementation of legislation that may be proper.  However, in recent years we have seen Executive Orders from Presidents of both parties enacted in the absence of legislation.  The so-called Dreamers Act of DACA is one such order which, strangely, SCOTUS sustained as lawful when a subsequent President attempted to remove it through an Executive Order.

The Legislative Branch Has Executed

Recent years have seen the Legislative Branch enact laws to take over certain powers of the Executive by curtailing the Constitutional powers of the Executive relative to dealing with other nations.

The Judicial Branch Has Legislated

Here is the crux of this discussion.  When the Judicial Branch legislates, there is no effective check on their power by either the Executive or the Legislative except through defiance, censure, or attempts at counter-legislation.

They Key Question in Abortion

The pivotal issue of abortion revolves around the rights of the unborn.  The rights of the unborn hinge, in turn, on the question of when does the unborn become a "person."  Once the point of personhood is reached, then all the protections of rights by the State come into play and the rights of the mother versus the rights of the child must be mediated.  Today, many believe personhood is established at conception.  Others argue it happens only at birth.  Still others take stances in between those two extremes.

This question of personhood was the key issue for abortion debates in states across the US until SCOTUS codified it at the start of the third trimester, based primarily on the notion that from that point forward the unborn might survive outside the womb, albeit with assistance.  This survival concept is referred to as viability.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/#tab-opinion-1950137

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn.Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. [Footnote 1] While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. [Footnote 3-2] Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857, and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante at 119.

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

When SCOTUS decided Roe v Wade they established a right which had been rejected as such by the Founders.  From the previous quote, the research of Justice Rehnquist revealed that the Founders reasonably knew about laws on the books controlling abortion, yet they did nothing to establish it as a legal right.  I will grant here that at this point in time the rights of women were largely neglected.  They had no vote and their property rights were often violated.  So, it is arguable that, in this instance, the right to abortion was being ignored. 

If a woman's right to abortion were the only issue with Roe v Wade, I would happily leave it there and focus this discussion on the crux of that matter, i.e., when does the right of a woman for an abortion conflict with the right of the child within her to not be deprived of life without due process?  That is the real question behind the question of viability and personhood.

To be blunt, science cannot answer the question of personhood.  Science is unable to accurately determine when a 'fetus' becomes a person.  Religion too has difficulty in this arena.  Short of God granting a direct and incontrovertible revelation detailing when the spirit becomes a permanent tenant in the body there is no way for us to know when the transformation occurs from mere flesh and bone to a living soul.

The debate over personhood is critical because personhood is necessary for legal acknowledgement and protection of rights.  In other words, the right of a woman to end a pregnancy infringes on the right of a child to life at the moment the child becomes a person.  If that personhood doesn't occur until birth, or if it occurs at conception, then the rights of the woman must be balanced against the rights of the person being born.

Some of the research by the majority opinion on Roe v Wade makes it clear that religions too, including Christianity and Judaism have differed in their views over time.  Traditionally, they focused on the moment of birth, or when the baby "quickens" and begins to actively move and respond to external stimuli while still within the womb.  The focus on personhood at conception is a relatively recent standard for religion.

Because the debate over personhood is so critical (and essentially unknowable) it becomes a matter of conscience and is appropriately left to the People to decide as they debate, implement, and amend laws intended to protect the right to life of an unborn child within their various states, or even at a national level through the Congress of the United States.

They can change these laws as their understanding changes.  They can elect or throw out representatives who support or oppose their views, and thus the rights of women and unborn children can be dictated by the collective conscience of the People.

When SCOTUS ruled in Roe v Wade, they took this debate out of the hands of the People.  Rather than letting the People use the legal means available to them through our Constitution, by judicial fiat SCOTUS wrote law to establish a legal thresholds for abortion across all the States at once.  

In Roe v Wade SCOTUS ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy it can be terminated at the will of the woman without any prohibition.  During the second trimester some concerns had to be addressed, and during the third trimester the only justification was the choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn.  

Justice Rehnquist's dissent puts the point on this issue.  "The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment." [my emphasis]

To be clear, the real reason why Roe v Wade is important to liberals is not because of abortion.  Liberals want Roe v Wade to be considered inviolate because it establishes a precedent of judicial legislation. 

Two Steps to Monarchy

The United States of America rebelled against Great Britain because they felt that their rights were being trampled upon.  When the Founders crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it was to establish a government which would protect the rights of the People from injustice by their government.  They rejected monarchy, democracy, pure republicanism, and other forms of government and instead opted for a Constitutional Republic.  

A republic allows the people to elect representatives who govern on their behalf.  A Constitutional Republic limits what those representatives can do in the name of the the People.  Unfortunately, as our country has grown is size our government has also grown in complexity.  The size of the Executive Branch has grown along with our country and the need to execute the laws has morphed into the creation of regulations which have the force of law.  This has led to the rise of an army of government bureaucrats whose sole reason for existing is to create, administer, and adjudicate the regulations of our government.

At any point we are just two steps away from being hurled from being a constitutional republic into becoming a de facto monarchy.  Those two steps are the absorption of the powers of government from one branch of government into the other. 

There are some who argue we are already dealing with lots of little monarchs in the form of unelected government bureaucrats who can write regulations, enforce those regulations, and rule on the proper application of those same regulations.  https://youtu.be/ZwmUH5AGydQ 

Source: PragerU

Fortunately, Congress has enacted laws which can be used to limit regulations allow Congress to review and strike them down, although it hasn't happened very often.

However, when the judiciary legislates, there is no one outside the judiciary who has the power to nullify or roll that back. Congress can pass laws to contradict or clarify, but a legislative judiciary can simply ignore all that and rule according to their own whims, rather than limiting themselves to their legitimate role.

Conclusions

Judicial legislation is a serious threat to our rights because it violates the separation of powers in the US Constitution.  It removes one of the essential checks and balances designed to protect us from a rapacious government.

The real importance of Roe v Wade is not whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion.  The real importance, and the reason liberals use it as a litmus test, is that the way the decision was framed was a broad act of judicial legislation.  As such, it is a key lever progressives want to keep using to subjugate individual rights and individual will to their own will and whims.  When a candidate for SCOTUS embraces Roe v Wade, they aren't embracing abortion.  They are actually embracing judicial legislation.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Socialism = Slavery

Image (c) AFP

                               This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

Socialism makes citizens into slaves.

You don't believe me?  Consider the state of the slave and his family.

Slaves are always fully employed: Slaves don't ever have to worry about unemployment.  Mom and Dad, and even the children, work when they become old enough.  Moms don't have the option of one of them staying at home to raise the kids while the other brings home the bacon.  If they don't all work, the master punishes them.

Slaves are all economically equal: No matter how hard they work, or how much they produce, they get paid the same as the slaves who do nothing every time the master looks away.  They are taxed 100 percent, and then the master gives them what she or he thinks is appropriate to keep them healthy enough to keep working.

Slaves have completely equal opportunity: Slaves don't get to keep the fruits of their labors.  No matter how hard they work, or how smart they are, it won't automatically make their situation better.  Did you know that it is probable that Eli Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin—an invention that gave the Southern cotton industry real economic legs and is credited with "reinvigorating slavery," actually took credit for an invention made by his slave?  You don't hear that story in American History class—do you?

Slaves have totally free healthcare: The slaves don't have to pay for healthcare.  The master gives them whatever level of healthcare that the master decides is suitable for them, even though the master may have access to a much better level of care than is provided for the slaves.

Slaves have free housing: The slaves don't have to pay for their food and shelter.  They get whatever food and shelter the master decides to give them.

Slaves are safe from crime: The slaves don't get to have access to guns.  That might not bode well for the master, making it hard for him to keep the slaves in line.

Slaves have totally free education: The slaves don't have to pay for education.  They get whatever education the master thinks they need to be effective in the work he assigns them.

Slaves get free clothing: The slaves don't even have to pay for their clothes.  The master sees to it that they have whatever clothing he or she feels is appropriate for the work they do.

Slaves get rewarded for government service: There is opportunity for a better life for slaves.  Slaves that are especially pleasing to the Master can work in the "big house."  There, they get better clothes and food and education, because they are directly serving the master.

Doesn't that list of "government benefits" sound a lot like the liberal agenda for this country?  It does to me.

Star Parker describes herself as "a welfare, crack ho."  The story she tells of her gradual realization that the welfare system has the "unintended consequence" of enslaving its recipients is enlightening.  Now, she is a champion of capitalism and freedom, which causes many people of color to decry her as an "Oreo"—black on the outside, but white on the inside.  That kind of thinking is another tool used by liberals to snatch economic freedom and victory from the hands of the poor and keep them in poverty.

The socialism in this country was championed by the Democratic Party by the likes of Woodrow Wilson and his protégé Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It should not be forgotten that it is the Democratic Party that pushed to keep slavery in place.  It is the Democratic Party that passed the infamous Jim Crow Laws, and it is the Democratic Party that initiated "The War on Poverty" under Lyndon B. Johnson.  It is now and always has been the aim of the Democratic Party to keep people of color under their thumb and their control.

I wish I could say that the Republican Party has staunchly opposed this creeping socialism and reprehensible oppression of people of color.  Unfortunately, the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass has largely been won over into the camp of socialism too.  Most presidential elections, we are given the choice between a socialist (Democrat) and a lite-socialist (Republican).

Neither choice is very appealing, and neither turns back the tide of socialism and slavery that is rolling in on us.

What is the answer?

Constitutional conservatives need to quit viewing politics as a spectator sport.  They need to overcome their natural revulsion over running for office and get into the ring.  They need to run for offices at all levels—local and state mostly—and take back our country, one city and county at a time.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

Lying Liberal Altruists

Image (c) iqoncept and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

The Lie of Liberal Altruism

In the 25th chapter of Matthew, the Savior speaks of the final judgment.  To those who have done well and to those who have not, He offers the same explanation for the reward they are offered.  He tells them all that, "... inasmuch as ye have done [or not done] it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

He is referring to how they did, or did not, take care of the poor, the sick, the destitute, and the afflicted among them.

Today, much of our political debate and divide appears to be focused on how we, as a society, believe we should go about taking care of the least advantaged among us.

For many years, as I read or heard these words, I believed that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.  I believed He was saying that He was holding us accountable for our treatment of our fellow human beings, and He is certainly saying that.  However, I am now convinced that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically in this matter.  Rather, He was being completely literal.

We learn elsewhere that in His atoning sacrifice, He suffered all the pains of humanity (Doctrine and Covenants 18:11), so that He could learn to succor those in need (Hebrews 2:18).  I suggest that, in a very real way, He has actually shared and felt the very pains of the homeless, the hungry, the naked, those in prison, and those who wash up on the edges of our society like flotsam washing up on a beach, and, that He did not suffer those pains in some abstract way, or as a derivative of what those people suffer—rather, through some incomprehensible mechanism, He is and was able to fully feel the actual pains that each of us has suffered and will suffer.  Having felt those actual pains, He then can understand our situation completely and can comfort us, or forgive us, in exact measure according to our pain and need.

Knowing that He feels the pains of others, when we help those in need, when we relieve the suffering of those in anguish or pain, when we feed the hungry, we directly reduce the amount of suffering and pain that Christ suffers.  Likewise, when we cause others to suffer, we add to the pain that He suffers.  When we fail to act to alleviate the pain and suffering of others, we fail to alleviate His pain and suffering.

I believe that is true.

In light of that belief, some would suppose that I would be driven to embrace the social welfare model of government (aka socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism, fascism).  In fact, much of the social welfare model of government wraps itself in a mantle of altruism about caring for the less fortunate among us, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Socialists like Bernie Sanders and liberals like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seek to destroy the rich (other than themselves), and even the middle class, and make us all equally poor together.

I despise their cries to destroy the wealthy in order to help the poor, and there is no hypocrisy in my feelings.  You cannot lift anyone up by tearing someone else down.

When Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their ilk talk about helping the poor and relieving suffering, they are not talking about digging deep into their own pockets and giving until it hurts themselves in order to help others.  They are content to keep their own wealth, gained by feeding at the trough of the taxpayers.  They will keep their wealth, and instead they will dig deep into the pockets of others and force them to give until it hurts.

Their hypocrisy in their failure to live the very principles they are espousing is as clear and horrendous as that of any Christian preacher who rails from the pulpit against the evils of the flesh, and then is caught in adultery and debauchery.  Their altruistic battle cries of "soak the rich" mask the brutal reality of their policies, which actually soak everyone who is above the poverty line in order to make us all poor together and ensure that the only path to wealth and comfort is through service to the state.

We need to re-enshrine the notion of individual action and individual accountability in our nation, especially when it comes to the issues of caring for the poor and disadvantaged.  A thrust toward individual accountability is in direct opposition to the socialist thrust of collective accountability.

Each individual should take personal action to help those who are less advantaged than they.  Each person should do according to their ability and means.  This does not mean that we cannot band together into charitable organizations to magnify our efforts, but we should not ever rely upon the power of taxation, which is nothing less than forcible redistribution of wealth, in order to take care of those who are disadvantaged.

I make a notable exception in this for military veterans.  Military veterans are the only organization which has earned the right to partake of a portion of the public treasury to support them in their times of trouble.  Because they have literally offered their lives in the service of our country, they are actually entitled to support through taxation.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

Embracing Intolerance

Image (c) Lightsource and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

The Hypocrisy of Intolerant Liberals

Once you understand that godless liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists cannot hope to succeed in their aims while the masses worship God more than man, then the hypocrisy of the left begins to make sense.

Their efforts to elevate the “wisdom” of men, in direct conflict with the commandments of God, are first defended with calls for loving, Christian tolerance and understanding from God worshippers, but as soon as any sort of critical mass of acceptance is achieved, the calls for tolerance quickly turn from pleas into accusations of intolerance.  They begin to attack and demonize those who aren't willing to wholeheartedly accept their patently ludicrous stances.

Consider the trajectory of liberal fascism that led to the recent controversy in North Carolina over HB2.

After gaining legal acknowledgement in the courts to support same-sex marriage, the liberal movement shifted its focus to gaining acceptance for transgenders.

The City Council of Charlotte passed an ordinance requiring that private businesses allow people to use women's and men's bathrooms and shower facilities at their own discretion, depending upon whether the individual “feels” like a woman or a man at that moment.

The government overreach in this case is appalling on its face, and the notion that a person with male genitals can stroll into a women's bathroom and shower facilities at will is preposterous.  If a man who wasn't claiming to “feel like a woman” walked into a women's shower facility, undressed, and used the showers, he would rightly be arrested for indecent exposure, at the least.  Perhaps he would be charged with some form of sexual assault, and, if there were minor girls present, he would be charged as a sex offender for exposing himself in that manner.

This city ordinance would have wiped out all those protections against such lewd conduct and given them the protection of law.  It was the local government forcing private businesses to accept this change, regardless of their own views or desires.

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory and the state legislators convened a special session of the legislature to address this case of government overreach and outrageous abuse of the principle of consent of the governed.  By an overwhelming majority, they passed House Bill 2 (HB 2), which prohibited local governments from requiring private businesses to implement rules requiring them to allow men to use women's bathroom and shower facilities.

This common-sense limitation of unfettered governmental overreach was met with a firestorm of cries of discrimination, intolerance, and accusations of being “haters” from the liberals.

I call this a common-sense measure because it is just that.  Regardless of whether a person “feels” like a man or a woman, their actual gender is manifested by their genitalia and by their chromosomes.  It is not at all a question of mental or emotional orientation.  It is wholly a matter of biology and science.

At this point, some will inevitably throw out the circumstance of true hermaphrodites—those unfortunate individuals that are born with both male and female genitals.  These individuals are more correctly referred to as intersex, rather than hermaphrodites, because they cannot reproduce asexually. 

Statistics on the occurrence of intersex births puts this biological phenomena between one-tenth of one percent to as high as 1.7% of all live births, depending upon the extent of the presence of both gender indicators present in the body.  So at the outside, this is less than 2% of the population.

As for transsexuals, people who are surgically altering their genitals to change their appearance, if their genitals are still what they were born with, then they need to look in their shorts and choose their bathroom according to what they see there, not by what they “feel.”

It does not make sense to allow men and women, boys and girls, to all use the same bathrooms and shower facilities simultaneously, just to accommodate less than 2% of the population and a few folks who haven’t yet completed their surgical transition.

There is no question in my mind that the next counter-intuitive legal foray on the sexual front will be to redefine pedophiles into a sexual identity that will require legal accommodation and the removal of legal sanctions for their behavior.  Coupled with that will be an effort to lower the age of sexual consent from the current standard of 16 years of age down closer to 8.  This will allow pedophiles to claim that their intercourse with a child of either sex was consensual and not subject to the legal sanctions of rape.

While liberals are trying to force social conservatives to first become tolerant of, and then embrace, all sorts of behaviors that are in direct contradiction of the commandments of God, they are working with the other hand to be utterly intolerant of the behaviors of God worshippers.  While fighting for the right of their own to behave as they want, they actively seek to deny the rights of those who disagree to behave as they want.  And, as was proven by the actions of the Charlotte City Council, they are perfectly willing to use the powers of government to force their views and behaviors onto both public and private businesses and individuals.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

Socialism and Totalitarianism Are Bedmates

Image (c) Igor Tishenko and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

Totalitarianism and Collectivism Go Hand in Hand

 Totalitarian

1.  of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.

2.  Exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

Dictionary.com

“Fascism is a religion of the state… Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with [the fascist government’s] objectives. Any rival identity is part of the ‘problem,’ and therefore defined as the enemy.”

Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

The worship of government as the savior of humanity takes several forms. 

Communism seeks to impose a universal world government on the entire planet and to thereby marshal all the resources of the entire globe for the purported end purpose of ensuring the well-being of humanity.

Socialism is a watered-down version of communism.  Socialism doesn’t require everyone to live as equals in the state-run world.  Those who are helping the most to promote the good of the people are worthy of the fat of the land.  This used to be one of the differences, and points of contention, between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China.

Mao presented himself as one of the people, wearing the same rough jacket as the ordinary peasants.

Of course, in the China of our day, the Central Committee members and top generals live like kings, and a creeping capitalism is steadily lifting the rest of the populace from poverty toward well-being.

Fascism is a form of socialism which purports that there is one nation or race that is mystically endowed with superiority over all other races.  This superior nation or race should—by right of its superiority—rule over all humanity and manage it for its own good.

Communism, socialism, and fascism—all of which are simply different flavors of collectivism—are all totalitarian forms of government.

This fact may come as a shock to some, because they are accustomed to thinking of totalitarian governments as being epitomized by having a dictator or “president for life,” and being at odds with collectivism because of the strong emphasis on the value of one particular individual—the supreme leader.

A quick consideration of history—past and current—reveals that dictatorship is entirely consistent with collectivism, even with the emphasis on one particular individual.  Consider the near-worship of both Lenin and Stalin in Russia.  I have already mentioned Mao in China.  Then there are the various men of the same family who have been ruling North Korea with an iron fist as a communist country since the Korean War.  Closer to the U.S., we have Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, both of whom were de facto dictators and drove their nations into the collective poverty of communism.

Totalitarianism is totally consistent with dictatorships and communism. 

"[Fascism] is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good."

Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

The liberal elite—the collectivists and progressives—are very adept at wrapping their efforts in altruism.  The common good has been used to justify most of the greatest injustices of the 20th Century.  In addition to the millions slaughtered in the name of establishing and maintaining the security of the socialist nations against their own citizens and those they have killed in their attempts to violently and forcibly convert to socialism, by one estimate the noble “right” of reproductive choice has slaughtered in excess of 1 billion unborn children worldwide.  Isn’t it wonderful and amazing what sacrifices are required for the common good from those who have no choice?

["Fascism] takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure."

Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism

When I read this quote, I think about Obamacare—the Affordable Care Act.  It was implemented under the guise of forcing 85 percent of the population to pay for health insurance for the 15 percent of people without insurance.  It was all about “the common good.”

The book Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, was a fictional portrayal of a socialist world with a “nanny-state” approach.  The undesirables are genetically engineered out of the race, or consigned to lives of abject servitude, where their discontent is quashed with liberal doses of drugs to keep them in line.  Added to the mix is a liberal application of free sex and the abolition of marriage and nuclear families.

In contrast with Huxley’s nanny-state portrayal of socialism, George Orwell, in his book 1984, depicted the unrelenting brutality of a socialist police state.  Moral decadence is decried, as is the social irresponsibility of being physically unfit.  Such “aberrant” behavior is punished, and crimes of “subversive” thoughts or words can result in torture and death at the hands of the agents of the state.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.